SD House Passes Abortion Ban

[Future Shock]

Wow, after nearly 600 posts on this forum alone, and being on-line with the same handle since 1982...I must not know how to quote...lol

Since you would rather evade than answer, let me make it easy for all to see your evasion:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

How do you define this as a 'small' issue? Abortion is the most common surgical procedure performed in the US today - about 3600 times per day, 1.3 million times per year. It's the end to over 20% of all pregnancies. Sounds like a fairly important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on, especially when one considers the moral weight that the issue carries.

How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

Future Shock

P.S. - I understand logic just fine...you need a class in grammer to realize your own sentence can be correctly read two ways...and I chose one. Now stop whining so much and answer - how does what a woman do with her body affect you, or are you just being santimonious???

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
Wow, after nearly 600 posts on this forum alone, and being on-line with the same handle since 1982...I must not know how to quote...lol

Since you would rather evade than answer, let me make it easy for all to see your evasion:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

How do you define this as a 'small' issue? Abortion is the most common surgical procedure performed in the US today - about 3600 times per day, 1.3 million times per year. It's the end to over 20% of all pregnancies. Sounds like a fairly important issue to me, regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on, especially when one considers the moral weight that the issue carries.

How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

Future Shock

P.S. - I understand logic just fine...you need a class in grammer to realize your own sentence can be correctly read two ways...and I chose one. Now stop whining so much and answer - how does what a woman do with her body affect you, or are you just being santimonious???

It's all about controlling others' lives, forcing their personal, sans-uterus morality on women.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

Future Shock

P.S. - I understand logic just fine...you need a class in grammer to realize your own sentence can be correctly read two ways...and I chose one. Now stop whining so much and answer - how does what a woman do with her body affect you, or are you just being santimonious???

You can't even spell 'grammer', but you're telling me to learn it. for you. I would address your point if it had any logical basis. However, a third grader can point out why your argument is hollow. Since you claim to understand logic, I'll assume that you can do likewise without my help. Maybe if you want a discussion, you should try discussing instead of telling people to 'shut the hell up', as this makes you sound like nothing more than an ignorant prick. Please, prove me wrong.

 

[robains]

themusgrat,

So she owns the tube, but not the fetus

-- Are you being serious? She owns it all -- lock stock and two smokin' barrels.

Yes, many years ago I had a girlfriend that had an abortion. I didn't force it on her, SHE decided it was best for HER. And yes, she was accosted with a ridiculous amount of "are you sure" and rheems of books, articles, and magazines telling her how "evil" she was and the alternatives.

Personally I think it is a pretty sad state of affairs that she had to endure that moral attack. In fact, I'm surprised some enterprising lawyer hasn't sued the state for accosting patients with so much "moral guilt propeganda". It's not like this planet has a shortage of inhabitants nor a population decline.

Rob.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Future Shock
How is it important to YOU? Have you had one?

No? Then shut the hell up and let half of this country have control of their own bodies...

Future Shock

P.S. - I understand logic just fine...you need a class in grammer to realize your own sentence can be correctly read two ways...and I chose one. Now stop whining so much and answer - how does what a woman do with her body affect you, or are you just being santimonious???

You can't even spell 'grammer', but you're telling me to learn it. for you. I would address your point if it had any logical basis. However, a third grader can point out why your argument is hollow. Since you claim to understand logic, I'll assume that you can do likewise without my help. Maybe if you want a discussion, you should try discussing instead of telling people to 'shut the hell up', as this makes you sound like nothing more than an ignorant prick. Please, prove me wrong.

"Is this really the direction that this forum is taking? Instead of actually addressing any points made in a response post, we'll simply say that the other person is wrong? How smart. " -- CycloWizard.

This is becoming my favorite CW quote. Twice in one thread already. You know what they say about people in glass houses, CW? Given all your bluster, don't you think it's about time for you to start addressing others' points, to demonstrate that there's at least a little substance supporting your belligerent pomposity?

 

[azazyel]

Other fun stuff from SD>...


House Bill 1217 - Abstinence-only Sex-Ed in schools
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1217p.htm


Because not teaching kids about safe sex will make them not have it. Yeah for SD! Way to talk a few steps backwards.

 

[Tab]

Why is south dakota so screwed up?

 

[taterworks]

Well, if abortion goes "underground" then at least there won't be this sentiment that the government condones abortion.

I'm one of those individuals who believes in free choice on the subject of whether a woman should bear a child or not. However, this choice is to be made before the sex act is performed. Thanks to sexual education in our schools, even teenagers know that truly "safe sex" doesn't exist and that there is always a risk of impregnation or STD passage whether or not condoms and/or diaphragms and/or contaceptive pills are used. So for a sexually irresponsible woman to whine that "I didn't intend this", that shouldn't carry much weight since she was aware of the risks and yet consented to the sex. What to do in the case of rape? This forces us back to the question of if an unborn baby is protected under law from murder, etc., and the more philosophical question of whether the baby as an individual should ever be held responsible for the actions of another person, over which the baby would never have had any control (having not yet become a genetically unique individual at the time when the man overpowered the woman and raped her). The resolution to this philosophical question should rest heavily on the fact that a 'fetus' is a genetically distinct individual, which makes the old argument "it's the woman's body and she should be able to decide what to do with it" is invalid because the fetus is not part of her body, like a stomach or a liver. Should a woman be forced to carry a rape baby? For this, we can refer back to the question of if the fetus is a legal individual, who deserves protection under the law from what would be a murderous act in that case (abortion). In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any rape, and I as a person wouldn't wish rape on anyone for any reason, ever.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tab
Why is south dakota so screwed up?

Georgia was saturated?

 

[taterworks]

Oh, and another thing - this business of people seeking the right for teenagers under 18 to get an abortion without ever telling their parents...why in the world would a young teenager ever want to do something like that? The only logical reason I can see for people to seek that 'right'* is to open the door for promiscuous, secretive sex between young people. I have never heard a good argument for why a teenager's parents should not be involved in any case where such a teenager seeks an abortion.

*It seems like people want to claim any 'rights' they can scream loudly enough to defend, whether or not it's in the best interests of society. So I use this term cautiously, and don't intend to insinuate that it's actually a right that people should have.

 

[Screech]

The main argument, taterworks, would be abusive parents, I think.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: taterworks
Oh, and another thing - this business of people seeking the right for teenagers under 18 to get an abortion without ever telling their parents...why in the world would a young teenager ever want to do something like that? The only logical reason I can see for people to seek that 'right'* is to open the door for promiscuous, secretive sex between young people. I have never heard a good argument for why a teenager's parents should not be involved in any case where such a teenager seeks an abortion.

*It seems like people want to claim any 'rights' they can scream loudly enough to defend, whether or not it's in the best interests of society. So I use this term cautiously, and don't intend to insinuate that it's actually a right that people should have.

Wow, I have not seen a more ignorant view of abortion around...

You have yet to see a reason why young people should not have their parents told? Do you live under a rock? How about.. incest? How about situations where their parents would commit an honor killing? There. You have finally discovered TWO whole logical reasons.. wow, that was indeed hard to find for you!

Give me a break.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
And if the Supreme Court ever decided to overturn Roe v Wade they will have to declare life begins at conception.
Which will change everything when a fetus has the same rights as a living person.
Imagine the incredible changes!
e.g. smoke one cigarrette during pregnancy get convicted of assault. A doctor gives you any medication that has even the SLIGHTEST effect on the fetus he goes to jail for assault.

I've used that argument before, and it went by totally ignored. If it's a child, then smoking in the presence of a pregnant woman constitutes assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe we need to install cameras in the house where every pregnant woman lives, and monitor the progress.

Then when the child is born, and gets a lung infection, we can let him die, since his parents don't have any insurance.

My God the political rhetoric in this thread /puke

Anyway. Here's the fallicy in this argument. First of all, the Supreme Court doesnt decide when life begins. Proof? Ever hear of a preggo woman getting killed and the suspect gets convicted on two counts of murder? We have already legally acknowledged life inside the womb.

Second. All this talk of "It's my body it's my choice" is BS. If you firmly beleive that, then dont come running to us men for child support. YOUR body, YOUR choice, YOUR kid. End of story. If we choose not to participate in the pregnancy, leave us alone. YOUR choice, right? Good. Then live with it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Tab
Why is south dakota so screwed up?

Georgia was saturated?

Heheheheheh you made me laugh :laugh:

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: taterworks
Well, if abortion goes "underground" then at least there won't be this sentiment that the government condones abortion.

I'm one of those individuals who believes in free choice on the subject of whether a woman should bear a child or not. However, this choice is to be made before the sex act is performed. Thanks to sexual education in our schools, even teenagers know that truly "safe sex" doesn't exist and that there is always a risk of impregnation or STD passage whether or not condoms and/or diaphragms and/or contaceptive pills are used. So for a sexually irresponsible woman to whine that "I didn't intend this", that shouldn't carry much weight since she was aware of the risks and yet consented to the sex. What to do in the case of rape? This forces us back to the question of if an unborn baby is protected under law from murder, etc., and the more philosophical question of whether the baby as an individual should ever be held responsible for the actions of another person, over which the baby would never have had any control (having not yet become a genetically unique individual at the time when the man overpowered the woman and raped her). The resolution to this philosophical question should rest heavily on the fact that a 'fetus' is a genetically distinct individual, which makes the old argument "it's the woman's body and she should be able to decide what to do with it" is invalid because the fetus is not part of her body, like a stomach or a liver. Should a woman be forced to carry a rape baby? For this, we can refer back to the question of if the fetus is a legal individual, who deserves protection under the law from what would be a murderous act in that case (abortion). In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any rape, and I as a person wouldn't wish rape on anyone for any reason, ever.

You make some very good poiints, all based on the concept that women lose their Constitutional rights if they get pregnant.

Or, even better, that there is no right to privacy, which makes liberty and the 4th Amendment meaningless.

You really want the government to have the power to force an individual to endanger their life and liberty because it might help another person live ?

May we have your liver ?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Tab
Why is south dakota so screwed up?

Georgia was saturated?

Heheheheheh you made me laugh :laugh:

:beer:

I had you in mind. I remembered your stories of all the lunacy that seems to thrive in Georgia.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We're about to become the laughing stock of the industrialized world. You can imagine political cartoons depicing a map of North America with cavemen holding clubs in the space for the U.S. That would be a more or less accurate description.

Heck, maybe we should just burn our Constitution and become a Christian Theocracy. Who needs separation of church and state? Perhaps the Christians could then go on a Jesushad and exterminate all of the non-Christians. We could then change the name of the country to Jesusland.

Why not? If we're going to force religious beliefs on other Ameicans, like the belief that an embryo cell mass that doesn't have a brain is the moral equivalent of an individuated person, then why not just burn the Constitition and its horrific First Amendment that establishes a separation of church and state.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Todd33
It won't get to the SC. This is settled law, it's just posturing by right wing idiots who are pandering.

Nothing is settled law in terms of its being permanent. The Constitution can always be ammended and even amendments can be wiped out by further amendments.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Do you have to be religious to oppose abortion on moral grounds?

More or less. Occassionally an atheist-wacko will come up with a convoluted, nonsensical reason for opposing abortion, resulting primarily from his having been indoctrinated with religious altruism when he was younger (there's the religion part again).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Does a relatively small issue like this have too be used as wedge between democrats and republicans? When people make political choices on issues like this we get administrations in office like what we have now. I consider my self pro choice, but won't any sleep on it unless some politician uses it to get the sheep to vote for him based on that issue alone.

It's a massive issue. That's why it's so devisive. It's all about whether individuals should be free to pursue their own lives or forced to sacrifice for the benefit of protoplasm--rational self interest versus altruism. It's also about whether the nation should be a religious theocracy or rational and secular. That this causes so much controversy is not an accident. It's about much, much more than just abortion.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Personally I wish this issue would just go away. There are far to many people on both sides who forego debate on all other issues to make sure that the candidate that sees their side of abortion gets elected. When SD gets this through the senate half of their legislature it's headed straight for court... and that means the SC. If the SC overturns Roe you can kiss debate on any other issue goodbye. Possibly '06 and absolutely '08 will be single issue elections. It's going to be a total nightmare.

It's a large issue and can't go away. Unfortunately, just like the war in Iraq, it also distracts the populace from other issues, like <gasp> the awful state of the nation's economy and job market and the problems of mass immigration and global labor wage arbitrage. I think the politicians would much rather deal with abortion, gay marraige, and Iraq than the other issues.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Meuge
That's why I said before - men have no right to decide the laws relating to pregnancy - their contribution, in a biological sense, is limited to a few thousand calories.

I'm glad you agree with me. Since women are responsible for their own biological function and thus are responsible for bringing children in the world, would you support the proposition that men should be allowed to have "paper abortions"? That is, that men should not be forced to pay child support nor to have any rights or responsibilities to unwanted children in the case of unwanted pregnancies?

I mean, if women have all of the choice about whether or not their will be a child, then shouldn't they also bare all of the responsibilities for their choices?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: robains
I guess I don't even understand why this is an issue??

Last I checked, my body belongs to me -- or can someone legally suggest that it doesn't? What has my body got to do with someone's moral issues?

Unfortunately, that is not true. Know what a consensual "crime" is? It's illegal to smoke marijuana and do drugs even though your action doesn't actually initiate physical force against other people. It's illegal to enage in prostitution. Even suicide and assisted suicide are illegal.

Nope--under the current laws we really don't have self ownership. Rather, to a significant extent, we are possessions of the state.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Let the red states ban abortion. That just means more buisiness in the blue states. More economic activity= red states stay poor while blue states thrive.

All this economic activity to be had. Taxi money. Medical bills. Food expenses. Hotel expenses. All of that goes to blue states. Yay.

That would be interesting and very just if the overwhelming majority of college-educated Americans fled the Red states along with all of the knowledge-based businesses.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: OhioState

Nope it does not take a book to tell me that waiting until a baby is almost out THEN tapping a hole in its skull and suckin out the brain is a bad thing. Or killing one in any other matter .
Thank goodness for new judges.

Is there a personality inside of that fetus?

Do you eat cows? Cows have brains and DNA too, no? So you support the killing of innocent cows for food? I've seen dogs and cats that were more developed and aware and that had a higher level of consciousness than newborns, but you wouldn't say that they have individual rights, woudl you?

How can you murder a person that doesn't exist yet? How did the personality get into the fetus? Unless you believe that a God-being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo or fetus (religious faith--Ok--but just admit the basis of your belief), then where did it come from?